Thursday, 28 February 2013

The Education Secretary, who himself would be the first man axed if we properly sized government, claimed that the sequester had already gotten some West Virginia teachers laid off. True, except they weren’t laid off and it wasn’t the sequester.

A Colorado school district has informed two parents that their first-grade son, Coy Mathis, will not be able to use the girls’ bathroom at their local elementary school, prompting the family to file a complaint with the state’s civil-rights division. The reason for their complaint is that although Coy is a boy, he identifies as a girl.

The Fountain-Fort Carson School District reasoned that even though Coy identifies as a girl, his presence in a girls’ bathroom could make girls uncomfortable, especially as he develops physically over the years. Instead, his school will offer the first-grader access to the gender-neutral faculty bathrooms or the nurse’s bathroom, along with the boys’ room.

The parents, who will homeschool their child until further notice, disagreed with the decision, saying that the district was “targeting [Coy] for stigma, bullying and harassment” and missing an opportunity “to teach Coy’s classmates a valuable lesson about friendship, respect and basic fairness.” CNN also reports that Coy’s state-issued ID and passport recognize him as a girl. But, the district attorney pointed out that the school refers to Coy as is requested by the parents and permits him to wear girls’ clothes, and that the decision regarding the bathroom was made out of consideration to female students and to set a precedent for older students.

Two points: First, these parents are sending their son to school dressed as a girl, but the district is targeting him for “stigma, bullying and harassment”? Second, the purpose of an ID or passport is to identify someone. Anyone with male genitals should be “recognized” as male, whatever his disorder.

Older people blighted by pessimism and fear for the future are more likely to live longer, according to scientists.

A study, into 40,000 adults across ten years, has found those with low expectations for a “satisfying future” actually led healthier lives.

In contrast, people who were “overly optimistic” about the days ahead had a greater risk of disability or death within ten years.

The extraordinary research, published by the American Psychological Association, will not doubt prove comfort to anyone with a tendency to grumpiness.

Frieder R. Lang, lead author of the study from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany, said: “Our findings revealed that being overly optimistic in predicting a better future was associated with a greater risk of disability and death within the following decade.

“Pessimism about the future may encourage people to live more carefully, taking health and safety precautions.”

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

Rep. Betsy Ritter, a Waterford Democrat, not only has sponsored a “combined reporting” bill, but she has also proposed a hoarder’s tax. This would place a levy on liquid assets -- companies with a lot of money in the bank -- and dedicate the proceeds to job creation programs.

That’s the coup de grâce for economic liberty: Tax and regulate every possible worthwhile investment into extinction, then scoop up the resources left fallow. (Via InstaPundit.)

The administration’s clever attempt at making the sequester appear scary (and appease its leftist supporters, to boot) has now extended to releasing detained illegal aliens before the sequester date even arrived. Unfortunately for the White House, the reaction has developed not necessarily to Obama’s advantage.

The lefties are asking why such “low priority” illegals were detained in the first place. Conservatives, meanwhile, were outraged at this latest example of lawlessness. Senator Sessions made the obvious point: “The administration has further demonstrated that it has no commitment to enforcing the law and cannot be trusted to deliver on any future promises of enforcement.” I wonder if McCain and his mini-me brought any of this up during yesterday’s White House meeting with Obama, or if they’ll just continue to carry the administration’s water in the Senate.

The New York Times, meanwhile, apparently was hard up to find someone on short notice to interview for its story about this on today’s front page. The person they went with is a probation-violating, wife-beating, child-abusing visa-overstayer who’d been detained for nearly three years because he’d been fighting his deportation with the help of a radical anti-enforcement group. The group was likely approached by the Times to provide a subject for an interview, and the fact that this joker is the best they could come up with tells you something.

FNC’s Bret Baier has seemed focused during his sequestration coverage on the impact of the cuts on personnel. His discussions of plans to let the executive move money between accounts, for example, has been done in the context of not furloughing people.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden gave some welcome news to NASA employees today telling them that no furloughs are expected if the sequester goes into effect later this week.

Unlike many other government agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD), the across-the-board spending cut of 5 percent would not require NASA to furlough workers to make ends meet. “We have safely and efficiently phased out the Space Shuttle Program and managed existing programs to conservative spending levels,” Bolden said in a letter to employees. “This has postured us so that we do not plan to resort to furloughs at this time for NASA employees to meet our spending reductions under sequestration,” he added.

Bolden noted that the sequester will not be as easy on the agency’s industry partners or the nation as a whole, and would set back NASA’s plans since it will cut “about $726 million from the President’s budget request.” That would cause delays in the commercial crew and space technology programs and “push back our next generation space vehicles.”

But is this giving taxpayers the best value? NASA’s mission is aeronautics and space, not the protection of in-house employment.

Likewise the rest of the government. A smaller workforce will require less equipment, training, conferences etc., but chopping those items severely just to preserve paychecks won’t produce the optimum result. (Via NRO Corner.)